Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!csun!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals
Subject: Re: What does SUID, SGID and Sticky bits do on inappropriate files?
Message-ID: <1990Dec28.061246.29268@kithrup.COM>
Date: 28 Dec 90 06:12:46 GMT
References: <1990Dec25.032451.25017@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1990Dec25.155758.8227@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1990Dec26.011025.4186@NCoast.ORG>
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Lines: 24

In article <1990Dec26.011025.4186@NCoast.ORG> allbery@ncoast.ORG.ORG (Brandon S. Allbery KB8JRR) writes:
>Some SCO Xenix, SCO "UNIX", and possibly SVR3.2 use setgid on non-executables
>to indicate that normally cooperative file locking should actually be
>mandatory.  The SCO "UNIX" systems at work do not use g+s on files, however;
>the command used is "chown +l".

This is defined by the SVID, actually.  I forget which version (I *think* 2,
but am not certain, since I don't have a copy at home).  As for the g+s vs.
+l (the 'l' stands for 'mandatory locking', as is intuitively obvious 8-)),
I think that was put in as a safety measue.  (Don't know that sco put it in,
mind you... could have been at&t.)

>SunOS and maybe other Unixes use g+s on a directory to produce sticky gid's:
>files created in the directory inherit the directory's gid instead of the
>creating process's egid.

Wow.  SCO does that too (just checked).  Neat... 8-)  (I *honestly* didn't
know it did it!  *Really*!)

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "I made the universe, but please don't blame me for it;
sef@kithrup.COM  |  I had a bellyache at the time."
-----------------+           -- The Turtle (Stephen King, _It_)
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.